It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So the FBI was wiretapping people connected to Trump

page: 10
57
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Most of Hillary's negatives are made up crap.
Bawahahahaha. This is the current liberal mindset, fascinating observation.




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Seems like a lot of people are having a hard time admitting Trump was right... I wonder will it be the same when the Russia investigation turns up nothing against Trump...

This thread has been epic, they're dropping like flies.

Nice rebuttals Grambler, keep it up.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

no, it doesn't actually prove trump was right, the article itself says that it's not clear weather they had tapped manifort's home at trump towers. and tapping the phones of someone who is renting space in trump towers is not like tapping the owner of that space!!! maybe if trump doesn't want to get caught up in this type of gov't surveillance operation, he should be watching who he associates with more closely, and well...
make sure he doesn't bring people onto his campaign team that has the kind of track record manifort has???

really, you are wondering how some of us will take it if the investigation turns up nothing?? gee, I am wondering what will happen if it leads to impeachment!!! considering that some (mainly christian talking heads) are saying it will lead to a civil war.... I am kind of getting a tad bit concerned about it.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
A sitting President wire tapping the campaign chief of the opposing political party before and during the campaign!?!?

This is bigger than Nixon!!

Democrats are so slimy and dirty it's mind blowing.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: UKTruth
Seems like a lot of people are having a hard time admitting Trump was right... I wonder will it be the same when the Russia investigation turns up nothing against Trump...


Nice rebuttals Grambler, keep it up.


Not really. He's made very specific claims and has failed to provide any evidence to even suggest what he has claimed.

His rebuttals are only nice if you like moving goalposts and deflections.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

What Christians? Total b.s.

This whole Russia thing is pushed by liberal media and won't stop until a head is on a spike. Shame.

You want to find Russia in elections, business with the u.s. officials?

Put the microscope on the Democratic party.

Mg



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
A sitting President wire tapping the campaign chief of the opposing political party before and during the campaign!?!?

This is bigger than Nixon!!

Democrats are so slimy and dirty it's mind blowing.


Much bigger... but some still refuse to tackle the issue, instead preferring to dig themselves deeper in their already entrenched view that Trump was wrong.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

No you made the assertion that this was all legitimate.

I showed that fisa courts are merely a rubber stamp, and so accepting their approval as making wiretaps against political opponents legitimate is a horrible standard that is just asking for abuse.

You think it's legit because I can't prove this was done for political purposes.

And so when future presidents do this, you will also be saying it is legit unless we can 100 percent prove it was for political purposes.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jjkenobi
A sitting President wire tapping the campaign chief of the opposing political party before and during the campaign!?!?

This is bigger than Nixon!!

Democrats are so slimy and dirty it's mind blowing.


Much bigger... but some still refuse to tackle the issue, instead preferring to dig themselves deeper in their already entrenched view that Trump was wrong.

And we thought they had a rough time on Nov 9 2016.
I am buying stock in kimberly-clark as kleenex will be in demand...biggly.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
A sitting President wire tapping the campaign chief of the opposing political party before and during the campaign!?!?

This is bigger than Nixon!!

Democrats are so slimy and dirty it's mind blowing.


Bigger than Nixon?

Hardly.

It appears the DoJ was completely justified in their actions.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



I showed that fisa courts are merely a rubber stamp, and so accepting their approval as making wiretaps against political opponents legitimate is a horrible standard that is just asking for abuse.


Again, you have to prove their intent was to wiretap someone because they were political opponents.



You think it's legit because I can't prove this was done for political purposes.


I think it's legit because only Right Wing nuts are crying about this and there is absolutely no evidence out there to suggest what you are others are suggesting.

At least you admit you can't prove it. That's a first step.



And so when future presidents do this, you will also be saying it is legit unless we can 100 percent prove it was for political purposes.


Of course you have to have proof. You can't simply just make things up and then cry foul. Which is exactly what you are doing and why you can't prove it.
edit on 19-9-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I just find it ironic you post CNN as your source and because it fits your narrative, agree with their reporting.

I also find it ironic Xue comes in two posts later and does the same.



Everyday it is more and more evident at the fabrications of the media and others involving the Russia investigation.


I don't get it. You quote the source (CNN) whom you've openly said has an agenda, especially the "Russian agenda", and then use the same source as an example of how the media fabricates stories? How does that work?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: missed_gear



every channel is "liberal media" unless the are far right right media though, so you really aren't saying much... if your sources are only those outlets that were spreading pizzagate and such, sorry, I think it's you who has the problem?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ColoradoJens

I love this argument.

So if is show that even an anti trump outlet like CNN says this, it's still not good enough.

If I post breitbart or drudge, you all will say it's no good.

If I post CNN or other left wing outlets that are admitting thhis, then you still have problems with it.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Are here in lies the difference in our opinion.

You allow for the wiretapping leaking and unmasking of political opponents unless 100 percent proof is provided that it was motivated politically.

I think that that system would be so devastating to elections and have such a potential for abuse that we should fight against it.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



You allow for the wiretapping leaking and unmasking of political opponents unless 100 percent proof is provided that it was motivated politically.


What?

That makes no sense.

You are literally saying that since I do not believe in your fabricated claims that I allow those things to happen.

Of course you have to have proof. You can't make accusations without proof and expect to be taken seriously.



I think that that system would be so devastating to elections and have such a potential for abuse that we should fight against it.


There is a process in place that the DoJ has to go through in order to wiretap people and unmask names. Do you propose we hamstring the DoJ and change the process in order to satisfy conspiratorial nuts?

You are making up a claim without any evidence and then claiming the system is potentially at risk of your made up claim.


edit on 19-9-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ColoradoJens

I love this argument.

So if is show that even an anti trump outlet like CNN says this, it's still not good enough.

If I post breitbart or drudge, you all will say it's no good.

If I post CNN or other left wing outlets that are admitting thhis, then you still have problems with it.



I didn't say it's still not good enough, and I don't have a problem with the story.

I said I find it ironic.

I read Drudge all the time; its really just a news aggregator.

Breitbart is simply propaganda.

If you are willing to quote CNN then perhaps you may admit that either:

a) CNN, although liberal in their approach, still provides factual reporting (on occasion)
b) CNN has gone batsh*t crazy and is now working for Breitbart.

Either way, by using the source you acknowledge that there is merit in their reporting. Based on the amount of "CNN FAKE NEWS" garbage that get's spewed about on a daily basis I'd say that's refreshing. Sorry about thread drift.
edit on 19-9-2017 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



You allow for the wiretapping leaking and unmasking of political opponents unless 100 percent proof is provided that it was motivated politically.


What?

That makes no sense.

You are literally saying that since I do not believe in your fabricated claims that I allow those things to happen.



I think that that system would be so devastating to elections and have such a potential for abuse that we should fight against it.


There is a process in place that the DoJ has to go through in order to wiretap people and unmask names. Do you propose we hamstring the DoJ and change the process in order to satisfy conspiratorial nuts?

You are making up a claim without any evidence and then claiming the system is potentially at risk of your made up claim.



Was there unmasking and leaks that lead to hurting trump politically?

Of course.

So it's not hypothetical.

You just think that is ok as long as I can't prove intent.

Now where have we heard that before?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ColoradoJens

Of course I believe CNN has factual reporting sometimes.

Hell I will go further than that and say most of the time. I just disagree with how they interpret it.

I have posted all over ats that I disagree with brushing any story merely because the source is biased.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Was there unmasking and leaks that lead to hurting trump politically?

Of course.

So it's not hypothetical.

You just think that is ok as long as I can't prove intent.


Where did I say it was ok?

What I am saying is that you cannot make the kind of accusations that you have without having evidence.

There are already laws and processes in place for unmasking and wiretapping, and there are also laws in place that would address using the DoJ as a tool against political opponents.

That being said, if there was any evidence to suggest the DoJ was used against Trump for political reasons, there are laws in place to address it.

So I'm not sure what your angle here is, except to get outraged about something you can't even provide one speck of evidence to suggest. No matter what, your approach is highly illogical.




top topics



 
57
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join